Mexico, I concede, is the only Latino republic I have personally set foot within. That does not make me an expert on the entire Latin America region or even necessarily of Mexico itself. it just means that having once had "my feet on the ground" there I can see it from a different perspective than if I had only read about it from afar in news reports.

The year was 1978 and Mexico's mood at the time was positively euphoric. Vast new oilfields had been discovered at a time of globally high oil prices in the waters off southern Mexico by their state owned petroleum monopoly PEMEX and Mexicans generally seemed to be looking to a very bright and prosperous future.

I, along with a mixed party of other gringo tourists went out on a day tour with a Mexican tour guide to see some of central Mexico outside of their capital city. The guide was a prickly character you needed to handle with care; but he was not reluctant to air his views on contemporary mexican politics if his guests seemed to be interested. In the course of conversation the issue of Mexico's recently discovered oil wealth came up.

I suggested that Mexico's oil windfall needed to be marshalled and used very prudently if Mexico were to reap lasting benefits from it. From his body language and subsequent silence it was clear that my view that profits from the future export sale of oil ought to be employed to promote economic growth, especially in his country's broad non-oil sector (sustainable growth) palpably perplexed and bemused my listener.

A straw in the wind you say? Yes, but a revealing one just the same. With hindsight, I am sure that our day tour guide would not have been the only person in Mexico looking forward to a future of effortless prosperity all paid for by the oil revenues and bestowed upon the populace via government largesse.

Succinctly, if our guide's view reflected public opinion in Mexico at the time as much as I suspected it might have then the broad public expectation prevailing in Mexico then would have been likely for nothing less than an early foretaste of Chavez-Maduro 3 decades ahead of Venezuela.

Cassowary, along with other regulars on this website sees that as "socialism" but I do not see it like that and have never done so. I by now would not expect any better as these seem to have minds fixated inside a narrow "socialism versus capitalism" frame of reference and are too unimaginative to step outside that particular box in order to take a fresh look at things.

Some Latino politicians might market it as socialism; but given the propensity of slippery politicians to misrepresent and lie in pursuit of voter support and other sorts of political advantages we should all beware of taking things that seekers of high public office say at face value. I do not see the Chavez syndrome in Venezuela as "building socialism" even if its proponents market it as such for public (and world) consumption.

I see it instead as being nothing but a much more traditional kind Latino populist pork barreling; the provision of benefits to masses of voter supporters funded by running down a national asset: in line with public expectations.

Live for today and let the future care for itself.

When Latino governments are not pork barreling the poor masses they are doing it for their privileged and wealthy oligarchies of landed wealth and inherited privilege . The difference lies only in who the targeted beneficiaries are.

I have often wondered about Latin America. Why is it that a region of the world so famously well endowed with natural assets has remained so poor and troubled. Logically, there has to be a reason for it and given the number of latino republics that have not been ruled by governments that are ostensibly socialist (I.e. living under right wing governments) then obviously the region's woes cannot necessarily be claimed on socialism.

I have often wondered about Latin America. Why is it that a region of the world so famously well endowed with natural assets has remained so poor and troubled. Logically, there has to be a reason for it and given the number of latino republics that have not been ruled by governments that are ostensibly socialist (I.e. living under right wing governments) then obviously the region's woes cannot necessarily be claimed on socialism.

Portugal is not Latin America, but I think that some of the things I learned about Portugal in the past 60 years might also be of use in Latin America. The main one is:

Without good and universal education you will get nowhere.

Latin Americans are not dumber or less willing to work than anybody else. But they will not be productive and competitive enough in present day world until they have been trained to study and to think by themselves, until they have acquired a good deal of knowledge, and have been trained in the higher skilled professions. All that will also help them making the right choices as far as elections are concerned, making it less likely for them to be systematically fooled by crooked politicians.

The second thing is:

People must be properly fed and have adequate health care, before they can be productive and capable of thinking clearly.

In most Latin American countries both things are generally missing. Few people get the education and vocational training they need, and few people are properly fed and looked after as far as health care is concerned.

Capitalism doesn't solve these problems, nor are capitalists interessed in solving them. Socialism recognizes the problems, but socialist parties have not - with the exception of Cuba - been able to tackle those problems either.

Capitalism doesn't solve these problems, nor are capitalists interessed in solving them. Socialism recognizes the problems, but socialist parties have not - with the exception of Cuba - been able to tackle those problems either.

Capitalism solves these problems so much better than socialism does that for decades Cubans have risked their lives on rafts made of trash in order to reach a vastly better life in the U.S.

Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

In most Latin American countries both things are generally missing. Few people get the education and vocational training they need, and few people are properly fed and looked after as far as health care is concerned.

Not universally true Sertorio.

See what the CIA World factbook has to say about Uruguay:

Uruguay rates high for most development indicators and is known for its secularism, liberal social laws, and well-developed social security, health, and educational systems. It is one of the few countries in Latin America and the Caribbean where the entire population has access to clean water. Uruguay's provision of free primary through university education has contributed to the country's high levels of literacy and educational attainment. However, the emigration of human capital has diminished the state's return on its investment in education. Remittances from the roughly 18% of Uruguayans abroad amount to less than 1 percent of national GDP. The emigration of young adults and a low birth rate are causing Uruguay's population to age rapidly.

I had a close friend from Uruguay. He once showed me a precis copy of their high school curriculum; the one that my friend had studied under back in his homeland. I knew enough Spanish to read it verbatim -with no need for a Spanish-English dictionary to help in translation. I was impressed. So much so that I concluded that their school curriculum is way ahead of ours.

Sometime later he briefly returned to his homeland to visit family. When he returned he proudly showed me a photo of the observatory attached to his old high school located in a provincial small town in the boondocks. The observatory was for use by science students so they could study the stars and planets at night. I attended a non-government school here in Australia for which my father had to pay school fees for my attendance. Even my old high school did not have its own observatory and still does not.

My impression of Uruguay is of an advanced country that alas, only got its economics wrong.

Economics and politics.

My friend's brother with whom I had also formed a friendship (more worldly and a successful businessman) told me how he learned here in Australia that the government is under no obligation to raise living standards. " Instead it is obliged to the best of its ability to create conditions whereby the greatest number of people can improve their own living standards (under their own steam). Back in Uruguay (before the military coup) we had two political parties, the Colorado and the Blanco and whichever won and election it was expected to (literally) raise your living standards. Meantime, no one was working to add anything to the GDP; no additional tax revenue was being raised.... "

The picture he presented was so very clear. Despite a well educated populace Uruguay fell into the trap of vote-buying populist politics and was ultimately ruined by them.